IamtheWaris wrote:I am not defending anyone but I am wondering when people say they have not done their job, what do people want them to do? Aren't two kids being held for trial trial in February?

I agree that Mike guy in the video is an absolute sleezeball and has done more punishment to himself than the law could ever do but I'm not sure what he could be charged with.

Mac is absolutely right. These goes beyond the 2 kids who are charged. One other kid that we know of, Cody Saltsman was charged and Anon found word of a backroom meeting with the sherrif, prosecutor, etc and the charges were then dropped. I am not sure of the exact details, but there are a lot of relationships between some of these players families, the DA, the PD...(so and so is this persons cousin. This person is related to this person type stuff) and its pretty suspicious of why more intividuals arent charged. Esp when these kids openly refered to themselves as "rape crew." There is A LOT of covering up going on what is ticking people off is the more that comes out (thanks to Anonymous and knightsec) the more the Sherrif and officials are going on the offensive against Anon and fighting back against them instead of using that evidence to investigate.

IamtheWaris wrote:I am not defending anyone but I am wondering when people say they have not done their job, what do people want them to do? Aren't two kids being held for trial trial in February?

I agree that Mike guy in the video is an absolute sleezeball and has done more punishment to himself than the law could ever do but I'm not sure what he could be charged with.

No, the sheriff is repeatedly threatening the people who are bringing this case to light, and defending the actual criminals.

To me that is just the sheriff being a POS more than anything. I understand the and agree with outrage at the police department and the entire "Big Red" crew but in terms of legal discourse I don't know specifically who else people want charged. Again I am not defending anyone just trying to figure it out as I am not as up to speed on the situation as many others. Thanks

IamtheWaris wrote:I am not defending anyone but I am wondering when people say they have not done their job, what do people want them to do? Aren't two kids being held for trial trial in February?

I agree that Mike guy in the video is an absolute sleezeball and has done more punishment to himself than the law could ever do but I'm not sure what he could be charged with.

No, the sheriff is repeatedly threatening the people who are bringing this case to light, and defending the actual criminals.

To me that is just the sheriff being a POS more than anything. I understand the and agree with outrage at the police department and the entire "Big Red" crew but in terms of legal discourse I don't know specifically who else people want charged. Again I am not defending anyone just trying to figure it out as I am not as up to speed on the situation as many others. Thanks

Yeah, he is a POS. Which is why I'm saying if he'd simply do his job instead of try and protect a reputation, his family wouldn't receive these threats. These aren't people that make threats for fun or enjoyment. They are doing it to try and get the sheriff to do something about the rapes.

DudeMan2766 wrote:There is A LOT of covering up going on what is ticking people off is the more that comes out (thanks to Anonymous and knightsec) the more the Sherrif and officials are going on the offensive against Anon and fighting back against them instead of using that evidence to investigate.

If the evidence was brought to light via criminal activity (e.g. Anon hacking) then it might not be admissible in court.

Presumably Anon is disclosing this information in the hopes that the police will act on it. I think that means a prospective defendant would have a pretty decent case that Anon was then effectively acting as an agent of the state, whether or not the state actively engaged them, which means they would be bound to substantially the same rules of evidence as the police and prosecuting attorney would be.

I'm sure one of our in-house attorneys could explain it better (or refute what I said outright), but I believe this called the "silver platter" rule.

DudeMan2766 wrote:There is A LOT of covering up going on what is ticking people off is the more that comes out (thanks to Anonymous and knightsec) the more the Sherrif and officials are going on the offensive against Anon and fighting back against them instead of using that evidence to investigate.

If the evidence was brought to light via criminal activity (e.g. Anon hacking) then it might not be admissible in court.

Presumably Anon is disclosing this information in the hopes that the police will act on it. I think that means a prospective defendant would have a pretty decent case that Anon was then effectively acting as an agent of the state, whether or not the state actively engaged them, which means they would be bound to substantially the same rules of evidence as the police and prosecuting attorney would be.

I'm sure one of our in-house attorneys could explain it better (or refute what I said outright), but I believe this called the "silver platter" rule.

That is a concern, however much of this stuff was gathered from deleted tweets and photos posted on social media. Those kids put that out there first.

I'm not sure what the current case law is, but if they've deleted the tweets/status updates and Anon recovered the data from the suspect's computer (as opposed to something like a cached version of those social media sites), then I think that's still silver platter territory.

For what its worth the KYAnonymous that is at the forfront of this claims he has a criminal justice degree and has gone over piece by piece in interviews of what he is doing and why it is all legal. He does seems to have a working knowledge of it.

This made Drudge. Not affirmatively saying no = consent says the defense. Sounds legit

I saw that yesterday, to say I was disgusted, would be an understatement. What I really wanted to know is how come I can get better coverage of this story from a British newspaper than from papers here when I live less than 50 miles from Weirton/Steubenville

Last edited by stopper40 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When the trial commences Wednesday, there will be no jury involved. Instead, a juvenile judge will decide the fates of Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, who face incarceration in a detention center until their 21st birthdays and the almost-certain demise of their dreams of playing football.

Reporter from inside the courtroom just tweeted that a new piece of evidence was addressed today that wasnt before. They have a photograph of the girl naked from the waist down, and both defendents, one of whom is also naked from the waste down. Ruh-roh.

DudeMan2766 wrote:Reporter from inside the courtroom just tweeted that a new piece of evidence was addressed today that wasnt before. They have a photograph of the girl naked from the waist down, and both defendents, one of whom is also naked from the waste down. Ruh-roh.